Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raymond v. Lachmann | 695 N.Y.S.2d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). | 264 A.D.2d 340; 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 07127 |
Trial court allowed visitation in property dispute over cat between roommates. Later, that court determined it was not in the aged cat's best interests to be shuffled back and forth so revoked its decision, awarding it to the non-possessory roommate in a straight property analysis. The appellate court determined that it would be best for the cat to remain with the possessory party because of his age and the amount of time he had already been living there. |
Case | |
| US - Air travel, service animals - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel (proposed rules) | 2008 WL 2018571 (F.R.) | Dockets OST-2004-19482; OST-2005-22298; OST-2006-23999 |
The Department of Transportation is amending its Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) rules to apply to foreign carriers. The final rule also adds new provisions concerning passengers who use medical oxygen and passengers who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. The rule also reorganizes and updates the entire ACAA rule. The Department will respond to some matters raised in this rulemaking by issuing a subsequent supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. |
Administrative | |
| In re MARRIAGE OF Kimberly K. Enders and Michael A. BAKER | 48 N.E.3d 1277 (Ill. App. Ct., 2015) |
In this case, Michael A. Baker appealed the trial court’s decision regarding property distribution and visitation rights with regard to his two dogs, Grace and Roxy, following his divorce from Kimberly K. Enders. The trial court awarded custody of both dogs to Enders and denied Baker any visitation rights. In making its decision, the trial court relied on a New York case in which the New York Supreme Court did not allow dog visitation. (Travis v. Murray, 42 Misc.3d 447, 977 N.Y.S.2d 621, 631 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.2013). The New York Supreme Court refused to apply the “best interests of the dog” standard and instead applied a “best for all standard,” holding that “household pets enjoy a status greater than mere chattel.” Baker appealed the trial court’s decision arguing that Illinois courts have the authority to order pet visitation. On appeal, the court determined that there was no case law to suggest that an Illinois court had ever addressed the issue of dog visitation. As a result, the court found that the trial court was well within its discretion to apply the standard used in the New York case. Additionally, the court of appeals applied the statutory definition of “dog owner” in Illinois and determined that Enders was the dogs’ rightful owner. The Illinois statute defined owner as “any person having a right of property in an animal, or who keeps or harbors an animal, or who has it in his care, or acts as its custodian.” The court found that because the dogs were left in Ender’s care following the divorce, she is the one who “keeps or harbors” the dogs and is therefore the owner. Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision and denied Baker visitation rights. |
Case | ||
| NE - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws (Article 10) | Neb. Rev. St. § 28-1001 - 1020 | NE ST § 28-1001 to 1020 | This Nebraska statutory section comprises the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. The cruelty provision provides that a person who abandons or cruelly neglects an animal is guilty of a Class I misdemeanor. Intentional animal cruelty results in a Class I misdemeanor for the first offense and a Class IV felony for any subsequent offense, unless such cruel mistreatment involves the knowing and intentional torture, repeated beating, or mutilation of the animal where such an act automatically results in a Class IV felony. Animal means any vertebrate member of the animal kingdom, but does not include an uncaptured wild creature (which appears to exclude otherwise heinous, intentional acts to wildlife). | Statute | |
| KY - Impound - Chapter 258. Animal Control and Protection. | KRS § 258.215 | KY ST § 258.215 | This Kentucky statute provides that peace officers, dog wardens, or animal control officers shall seize and impound any dog which does not bear a proper license tag or other legible identification which is found running at large. Interestingly, if an officer after diligent effort to do so, should fail to seize the dog, it is his or her duty to destroy the dog by any reasonable and humane means. The statute specifically exempts actively engaged hunting dogs from the "loose dog" prohibition. | Statute | |
| Holcomb v. Colonial Associates, L.L.C. | 2004 WL 1416659, 2004 WL 1416659 (N.C.) (Only Westlaw cite available) |
This North Carolina case involves the issue of whether a landlord can be held liable for negligence when his tenant's dogs injure a third party where a landlord has agreed by contract to remove "undesirable" dogs. Under the terms of the lease, the tenant, Olson, could keep one Rottweiler dog on the property. It was also stipulated that the landlord could require removal of any "undesirable" pets with 48-hour's notice. The dogs in the instant action attacked a contractor who was making an estimate on some of the rental homes, and, according to testimony, had committed two prior attacks. The court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred, in that the plaintiff was not required to show Colonial was an owner or keeper of the dogs in order to show Colonial was negligent; that requirement is limited only to strict liability actions. As a result, the court found Colonial failed to use ordinary care by failing to require the defendant Olson to restrain his Rottweiler dogs, or remove them from the premises when the defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, from the dogs' past conduct, that they were likely, if not restrained, to do an act from which a reasonable person could foresee. Of particular importance to the court, was the lease provision, which the court felt contractually obligated the landlord to retain control over defendant's dogs. |
Case | ||
| ME - Divorce - § 953. Disposition of property | 19-A M.R.S.A. § 953 | ME ST T. 19-A § 953 | In 2021, Maine amended its divorce laws to allow a judge to consider other factors in awarding ownership of companion animals to one party. These factors include things like (1) the well-being and basic daily needs of the companion animal; (2) the amount of time each party has spent with the companion animal during the marriage tending to the companion animal; the ability of a party to continue to own, support and provide adequate care for the companion animal; (3) the emotional attachment of a party to the companion animal; (4) the emotional attachment of any child in the household to the companion animal and the benefit to the child of the companion animal's remaining in the primary residence of the child; (5) any domestic violence between the parties or in the household of the parties; and (6) any history of animal abuse or other unsafe conditions for the companion animal. | Statute | |
| IL - Restaurant - 5/11-20-14. Companion dogs; restaurants | 65 ILCS 5/11-20-14 | IL ST CH 65 § 5/11-20-14 | This law provides that a municipality with a population of 1,000,000 or more may, by ordinance, authorize the presence of companion dogs in outdoor areas of restaurants where food is served, if the ordinance provides for adequate controls to ensure compliance with other Illinois health laws. An ordinance enacted under this Section shall provide that: (i) no companion dog shall be present in the interior of any restaurant or in any area where food is prepared; and (ii) the restaurant shall have the right to refuse to serve the owner of a companion dog if the owner fails to exercise reasonable control over the companion dog or the companion dog is otherwise behaving in a manner that compromises or threatens to compromise the health or safety of any person present in the restaurant. Under this law, "companion dog" means a dog other than one who is assisting a person with disability. | Statute | |
| MN - Humane Slaughter - Chapter 31. Food. Slaughter of Livestock | M.S.A. § 31.59 - 31.592 | MN ST § 31.59 - 31.592 | This section comprises Minnesota's humane slaughter laws. The law requires humane slaughter of livestock, defined as any method of slaughtering livestock which normally causes animals to be rendered insensible to pain by a single blow of a mechanical instrument or shot of a firearm or by chemical, or other means that are rapid and effective; or by methods of preparation necessary to Halal ritual slaughter, Jewish ritual slaughter and of slaughtering required by the ritual of the Islamic or Jewish faith. "Livestock" under this act is limited to cattle, horses, swine, sheep and goats. | Statute | |
| HI - Therapy animals - [§ 323-51]. Animal therapy | H R S § 323-51 | HI ST § 323-51 | This Hawaii law allows common household pets to be brought into long term health care facilities for the purpose of visiting patients. The institution can determine the rules for visitation. It also may require the animal owner o produce written documentation from a veterinarian attesting to the animal's good health. | Statute |